User talk:Luna Santin/Archive 20


Talk – Sandbox – Suggestions


  This is an archive of past discussion. Please do not modify it.
If you need to continue or revive one of these discussions, feel free to start a new thread on my talk page.


Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
1 « 19 ‹ Archive 20 › 21 » 28


Thank you

For reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe DRINKING as little too much rum

[1]. LOL... Its all good. I could use a drink myself, now that you mention it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah, not sure where that one came from. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Christopher Mann McKay

I don't really object to this unblocking. Perhaps indef was too long but it seemed to me that having reached an impasse on WP:ANI over the use of that image, he was then upping the stakes by not only taunting User:Prester John (for whose stance I have equally little tolerance), but also adding an even more offensive caption to the original image. However, CMM seems to have realised that this sort of behaviour is not going to go down too well. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. We'll see where this goes. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hummus

I question this edit, which has removed etymological information and strays from previous consensus not to include additional transliterations in the header. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to this supposed "consensus"? I sure as heck can't find one here. M1rth (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[2][3]. I'm neutral as to what additional transliterations might go into the header, but I question making this change again without any discussion. Moreover, you removed additional Arab language material without discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All well and good, but I'm not sure why this is on my talk page in particular. I was acting to stop some pretty clear harassment, and have no other involvement in the article itself. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen's been on some kick to attack me all of a sudden, I'm not sure why. I especially wonder why she quotes a "consensus" based largely on massive sockpuppetry (tons of names, plus a lot of IPs on that page that match) by Jamiechef2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki): stuff like this. Given that her own quotations on the page indicate that the etymological origin is un-knowable, I really don't understand why she chooses to attack me, unless there is something behind the scenes I'm unaware of. I'm also confused by discussions on her talk page in which she insinuates that the Jamiechef2 affair was a "false flag" attack. M1rth (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't clutter up your talk page other than to say, the two diffs I provided above are not the edits of sockpuppets and I'm not attacking M1rth, I only questioned his sweeping edit to the lead of an article which has seen much edit warring and sockpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes

File:Three rums jvp.jpg
Mmmmmm RUM! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, there's a little admin in all of us. (bah, I'll be kicked out of this computer lab in a few minutes, classes and all that) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Funny. I have a pint of the ole' Cap'n and I was just mulling over a glass. Anyhow no vandal/troll slaying tool belt here, just the good old fighting tools. :P Great to talk to you again sir Santin! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rum on the mind, Luna? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problem with IP editor

Hi Luna - this person seems to be back under his IP of 70.184.145.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), making the same incorrect edit of birthdate to Barbara Walters as done previously and doing the same on Michelle Stafford. Further, he blanked my talk page presumably in retaliation for my earlier reversion of same error, and another time replaced my talk with offensive language. I consider this harassment at this point - see contribution history. Can something be done about this? He has also edited as Cantwaitforit and Zachfins54. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 04:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response; since they've clearly been at it for a while, now, and the IP doesn't appear to be shared and may have been used for abusive sockpuppetry on top of the visible problem edits, I've blocked all editing from that address for one year. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - maybe he'll grow up. Tvoz |talk 04:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Static school IP

Softblocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Added the anon. block message to the Talk page. Enigma msg! 02:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy

I'm unfortunately turning into a bit of an admin pest here (not really my style!), posting first to ANI, then on LaraLove's talk page (she seems to have gone offline), and now to you. I'm a bit concerned over the situation over at Don Murphy given the past history of which you seem to be aware. See also this ANI thread for background. We have three new accounts (RTFA, Runabrat, and Curiosity Inc.) editing heavily at Murphy's article. Two of those strike me as obviously related (not too hard to tell which two) and it's possible that some or all of them are strongly pushing a POV and might be related to past banned accounts in some fashion (I'm still assuming good faith, but there's suspicious stuff there).

In any case, given the history I think admins or other higher-up types need to figure out what's going on with these accounts. After the last Don Murphy AfD I watchlisted the page specifically to be on the lookout for problems there (which I said I would do since I !voted to keep the article). I don't want some new big mess to crop up and I feel that someone who knows the background needs to take a look at this soon. Not trying to be overdramatic, just overcautious. Any thoughts about who to contact about this? I'm not an expert on this kind of situation and the ANI thread is not drawing much help, perhaps because not a lot of people understand what this is about (I don't even understand it all myself).

Any suggestions would be appreciated, I'll check back here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep an eye out and contribute where I can. Worth keeping an eye on some of these new accounts, as long as we're careful about WP:BITE. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I think we should be a bit more pro-active given (from what I've heard at least) the supposed level of harassment that took place before. I'm a huge proponent of WP:BITE but I'd say the odds are 99 out of 100 that two of those accounts are related (the edit histories say it all) and this is not your typical situation. I have no idea who dealt with this before or how it was dealt with, my only objective in posting on ANI and contacting you was to make sure that whoever dealt with it in the past was aware of the situation. I don't know how to go about doing that, and that's all I really wanted help on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied via email. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm not getting it so far, I think possibly because of a problem with Wiki e-mailing right now - I was not copied on an earlier message I sent out either. Probably just a delay.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luna, this problem seems to have been partially dealt with (see ANI thread) but for whatever reason I did not receive your e-mail. If you happen to have a copy, would you mind forwarding it directly to my e-mail account? (I have a hotmail account, my Wiki user name is the first part of the address). If you don't have a copy then don't worry about it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks. I've resent, though now that Viridae's deleted the page it may be moot. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check on something - weird

You deleted this page today, and rightly so, but somehow it was on my watchlist after deletion. The only reason I can see that happening is that a page was moved to this title and then deleted. Can you check the deleted article's history and see if that is the case? I don't immediately notice any other article on my watchlist "missing", but I probably wouldn't notice it immediately. It's just really weird, and it doesn't make sense to me. Thanks for taking a look into it. • VigilancePrime • • • 05:24 (UTC) 17 Mar '08
Huh. Pagemove vandalism, obviously. :) Only one deleted edit, when I moved it back home, but for whatever reason the summary only says "Moved foo to" (it cuts off). Might have hit the length limit? Unless some more complicated database issue is going on. I haven't fiddled with the ins and outs of moves vs. watchlists, too much, so I dunno if this is normal behavior. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did it say what the page name had been? It is strange... I even went through a bunch of pages on my watchlist that could be "targets" for vandals... how about the user that made the move? Brainstorming here... • VigilancePrime • • • 05:36 (UTC) 17 Mar '08
Was User:Æschere. Looking at their move log, seems the original page was User:Jimbo Wales. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::rolls eyes:: You'd think people would have better things to do, ya know? Thanks. • VigilancePrime • • • 06:07 (UTC) 17 Mar '08

Update static school ip block

Hi Luna.

You helped me about a year ago with a block on an ip address range. We've since switched to a new five year agreement with a new ISP and have new ip addresses. I was hoping you could change the block for us.

The old addresses included 209.7.28.226-209.7.28.254. The new addresses include 75.145.173.121-75.145.173.125.

If you need any more information from me, please feel free to contact me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsaguy (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal

Hey, can you help me with something? I caught a vandalism IP making disruptive edits today, so I reported it to AIV. The report was up at AIV for 30 minutes, and it was completely ignored by the admins patrolling AIV at the time. The only possible explanation I can think of is that the admin(s) in question were hesitant to block the IP, but that's not reasonable. It's just off a block and has the "Further abuse from this IP may result in an extended block..." message on its talk page. Please take a look.

63.3.18.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Enigma msg! 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Thanks for taking care of the vandals. I was wondering, though, isn't it customary to put a notice on the user page or user talk page that the user has been indefinitely blocked? I had to check the block log for both users to see how they've been blocked. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reported the toad for vandalizing Erik's page. Clearly, it's diaper-wearer who's unafraid to sock. Can we send him on his merry, little way? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you got it right away. Does it have to cycle through before it shows as indef ban? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some admins do leave block notices; I tend not to, in cases of simple vandalism -- they're not going to have any trouble understanding why they're blocked, I suspect, and further communication may only encourage them. I've made some more lengthy replies at User_talk:Luna_Santin/Archive_26#lack_of_blocked_templates_on_user_talk_pages or User_talk:Luna_Santin/Archive_25#Luna. :) If this particular vandal comes back, feel free to let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smart money says they will be back, since a community ban takes too much time to permanently scrub the person's icky away. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient block for 117.18.81.2

You blocked User:117.18.81.2 for just 48 hours despite two previous longer blocks and huge number of pages being vandalised today just after the last block was released. I think a much longer block is justified. --TimTay (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just discovered this IP is a school, so a schoolblock is justified --TimTay (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. :) I did find a good edit or two mixed in with the chaff, which makes me hesitate to give it a really long block -- if a shared IP is all bad edits for quite some time, I tend to block for a good while. Will be happy to revisit if it keeps being problematic without any apparent good users, or if consensus determines a longer block is appropriate. Think that covers your concerns? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see!

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're still about. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I saw that you beat me to reverting vandalism. And today is my first edit anniversary, as seen in my userpage. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 11 13 March 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor — From the editor
Features and admins
Features and admins
Volume 4, Issue 12 17 March 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from APK

Thank you for the common sense judgment in the unblock request review. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be a little help. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[4] You just beat me to it. :P Tiptoety talk 05:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Star
Ouch, that's one nasty anon vandal gunning for you. Look on the bright side - you've just earned this Purple Star :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thank you both! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Gauci

Can you please consider unprotecting the page? There has been relatively little discussion about the disputes so far, thus I think its safe to say that edit-warring isn't likely to happen at an alarming rate, and things won't be as bad as before. Thanks. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to say it's not protected, anymore, but see you got Gb to have a look. Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

your gallant help is very appreciated. Sssoul (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. Feel free to let me know if you need any further input. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP block

This may well be an open proxy. Came across it on Commons & via CU as well, cheers --Herby talk thyme 20:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for letting me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I know I am argumentative, and not the easiest to handle. But I just want to thank you for what you said. Figured I'd say it before i got blocked. ShieldDane (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

someone needs to make me seriously

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani#Igniateff_is_Joshuarooney ShieldDane (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do take the accusation seriously, but at this precise moment I think it's most productive if everybody takes a breather. Calmer people make better decisions. Hope you understand. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of edit

Hi. I'd be interested to know why you removed this [5] from KingsleyMillers talkpage. Is it just because it contains personal attacks or is it because it was from an IP number? This IP number is in fact User:KingsleyMiller who quite often forgets to sign himself in but does not appear to be pretending to be anyone else, and this post is part of his ongoing campaign against me and User:Jean Mercer in relation to a riveting subject called maternal deprivation.Fainites barley 14:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An apparently "new" user who shows up and immediately starts rapidly spamming such messages looks suspicious; usually it's somebody evading a block or ban that does that, but at the very least it seems questionable under WP:CANVAS and possibly WP:HARASS. Now that I know a bit more, their discussion style seems a bit more abrasive than we're generally used to, but not to abrasive that dealing/discussing with them is impossible. I can maybe try to keep an eye on it, but hesitate to do anything myself at the moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kip Miller has been around for a while and this style is pretty par for the course for him but he's not up to speed with policies. I'm not sure he's aware you've removed this particular post. I haven't asked anybody to do anything about his behaviour because he doesn't actually edit war in the articles but it is beginning to get a bit beyond a joke. Fainites barley 09:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like somebody who manages to be abrasive without doing too many of the things that are "hot buttons" to get admin attention. If it's a problem, you might try an RfC on user conduct; if not, it looks like you're managing okay so far. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for reverting the Vandalism on My talk page. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 03:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article - H.A.G.G.E.R.??????

I noticed that you deleted the bogus article "H.A.G.G.E.R.??????" recently.

The only reason I know this is because it was on my Watchlist. The thing is, I didn't put it there!

Are vandals able to edit user's Watchlists as well as vandalising articles? Just curious to know. Ozzieboy (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a target of pagemove vandalism, unfortunately (similar to #Can you check on something - weird above). Depending on what date it was moved and what you had/have on your watchlist, the article was either Zacarias Moussaoui, The Economist, or The Simpsons. Generally a watchlist entry will change when a page is moved, but I'm actually not totally sure what happens when it's moved back. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet

Thanks for the protection on Maddox. People keep trying to vandalize the page and it's driving me crazy! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hopefully things settle down a bit. Though given his particular place in net culture, we'll have to see. Will try to check back, but feel free to send me a message if things get out of hand. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will. You're right, though. Based on his popularity and who his fanbvase consists of, I don't see the vandalism ever truly going away. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kristy22 at WP:AN/I

Thank you. I was wondering what was going to be done with that entry. ... discospinster talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Win Award!

For this. No further comment necessary. :D Epic cheers, Миша13 11:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :) Thanks! – Luna Santin (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also find those kind of responses very funny. Keep it short and snappy. When a vandal calls everyone Nazis, just say "OK", or something to that effect. Enigma msg! 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi LS, Just saw your protection of DS's page. Could you take a look at and consider semi-protection for all of his pages as per my request at WP:RfPP (here)? Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go ahead and semi his front page, but that's already done. I typically semi anything in userspace on good-faith request from the associated user. Granted he says he's on vacation, now. Got to get off to class, but if vandalism continues or I hear from David I'll look into it. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I've sent an email to DS. R. Baley (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just got back online. Was planning to ask DS, as well, though it's probably moot, now, since Maxim's gone ahead and protected. No skin off my nose. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Formosa

This user has been editing disruptively. Having been warned numerous time by me, he/she seems to be ignoring the edit summaries of my reverts, and sometimes does not even leave any edit summaries while making unilateral moves and edits. He/She has also been adding unsourced contents to biographies of living people. Almost all of the edits are Taiwan-related and controversial. Please see his/her contributions for reference and take action (perhaps a short block). Thank you.--Jerrch 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 124.180.116.122

Thanks for blocking User:124.180.116.122; someone using this IP address has placed a bad faith report on WP:AIV against me. Could you also protect User talk:124.180.116.122 to prevent continued nonsense on the IP talk page? NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besuto

He's a user requesting unblock, claiming one of your autoblocks got him. Can you take a look? Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the same user as is currently blocked on the IP; was editing anon, and got into a bit of a spat, looks like. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 13 24 March 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops!

It looks like we both tried to use rollback on the Hogwarts article at the same time and our edits crashed and burned! Sorry about that! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. :) I realized a bit after hitting rollback that I should have been reverting to an earlier version, too, heh. Tcncv seems to have gotten it for the both of us. Always glad to see people helping out. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babyboywhiner

I wouldn't recommend unblocking this editor, as it appears to be another sock of JJonz. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Didn't have much idea who it was, but seemed pretty evident they weren't up to anything good. Thanks for the heads-up. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really feel sorry for User:David A, since he has become the main target of this vandal. Think there is anything that can be done? Perhaps semi-protecing his user pages? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could, although the user/user talk pages don't seem to be primary targets at the moment. =\ Depending on how active these socks are being, it may be worth asking checkusers to find sleeper accounts and/or block underlying IP addresses; semi-protection on repeat targets is likewise an option. I'm not sure how best to proceed, just yet, without seeing more of these socks in action. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Thanks for removing the block, I was wondering if there was any way that you can block all account creations from my I.P address (don’t block my account though). I wont want to start another account so that should be fine, because these types of incidents isn’t so good for my reputation (sharing an ip with a vandal) and I really don’t want it to happen again as it is a big time-waster. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it continues to be an issue, I suppose we could see about it. Looks like it miiiight be dynamic? Wouldn't worry too much, though -- we used to have endemic problems with all of Singapore getting blocked accidentally, and as much of a hassle as it was, we managed. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing from your user contribution you've done quite a bit of anti-vandal work....
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Awarded to Luna Santin for his/her great work fighting vandals. And blocking off vandalism accounts Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thanks. :) We all do our parts, I figure. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

User:Mohun might well be another sock of DWhiskaZ. Contributions suggest it. See here. Relata refero (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the same feeling; not sure if it's conclusive, yet, I'll poke around for second/third opinions and wait for more activity. I won't take any offense if you run this past someone else, in the meantime, of course. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalsim in my user page. Tanvir che (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Thankyou for your help. It really helps. I hope the page explains it well. Chubbennaitor 11:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCU/CN

Luna, just an FYI that I've responded to your post at WP:RFCU/CN#Folding. Would it be more suitable to simply be bold and merge the pages? Just a thought, but it'd allow us to get it over and done with, rather than all this discussion, and get on with other things :) Thoughts? Anthøny 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

As you were reverting Ross's latest, I was typing this. Just a heads-up. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for keeping me up to speed. Guess I'll check back at some point in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to Luna Santin

No problem, I guess you were using a tool like WP:AVT? I pasted the working copy of the text I had and appended it to the existing text instead of replacing, by mistake. Gary King (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the gist of it, yeah. :) Glad it's sorted, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Time!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 02:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Luna Santin (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Bill Gates to Featured Article status

I am currently improving Bill Gates to Featured Article status, and noticed that you made substantial contributions to the article recently. If you have time, please help out in improving the article to Featured Article status. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing page protection

Please don't abuse page protection. The discussions on the talk page, at the very least, were not all concluded. Blanking the closing statement itself is just stupid, as it contained nothing necessarily negative about anyone, and was calmly worded. This is just absentminded protection, and is not supported by the protection policy. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page didn't look very active, with no relevant edits in the past five days -- a more central forum may be more appropriate to continue the line of talk, anyway. Perhaps I'm acting a bit hastily, but if the matter is closed there are good reasons to blank the page. I see you're in ongoing discussion with Prodego, regarding said closure. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just have a bad taste in my mouth about this whole thing. Protection at this point is a trivial matter, and there's no need for me to be upset about it. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. You've done nothing wrong that I can see, and I sympathize with your position (which I hope is a small consolation, at least). – Luna Santin (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hardy dead

I didn't make it up, i seen it when i google searched a whole bunch of wrestling websites

not only that im sure that something was on myspace

just google search like i did —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewwegod1 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:124.176.154.181

They requested an unblock. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were trolling off-site, bragging about how they'd vandalized and wouldn't be caught. Given prior interaction, I see no reason to unblock or believe a word they're saying (notice how they're predisposed to believe they're blocked for vandalism, without being told as much?)... but if others disagree, and somebody's willing to, I won't get in the way of an unblock. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR nomination

Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

Please give a valuable reason to you removed the AFD on communism. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all frankness, there's not a chance in hell a core topic article will be deleted -- that doesn't mean you can't work on it, in fact you're more than welcome to. If you'd rather start with a blank slate, starting a sandbox in your userspace is one option. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please keep cool and ask me any questions if need be. Peace. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]




User:Rahulkavalapara

Hi, Luna. I sure hope you're still online! We have what may be a returning vandal at User:Rahulkavalapara whose very first edit was a beautifully formatted...copyvio. Both he and his IP are removing the deletion notices; I also suspect the IP is an open proxy. Thanks for looking into this for me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Around, but barely. ;) Deleted the page, will watch for more from {{user|24.119.165.139]] or Rahulkavalapara (talk · contribs). – Luna Santin (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm generally terrible at accepting compliments, so... well, thanks. :) We all do our part, I hope. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quit being so gosh darn modest Luney Rum. You are as the kids say "the shit"[1] and you rock[2]. Now drink your rum like a good boy. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{fact}}, {{fact}}, and yessir, with coke on the rocks. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "the shit" Luney being the shit
  2. ^ "Improve" Luney being awesome

Maternal deprivation

Actually Luna it is now getting out of hand. KingsleyMiller applied for arbitration which was turned down.[6] He appealed - which was simply removed, and now has appealed again by way of a request for clarification.[7] All that is fine - except for this on the bottom of the talkpage. [8] This seems to me a serious matter. The only arbitration JeanMercer and I have been involved in is with a sockpuppeteer (DPeterson was his most common name )who ran about 7 puppets to "own" all the attachment pages. He has been involved with real world disputes with JeanMercer before (in scientific papers) and his last entity, after the other 6 or 7 puppets were banned, was indef banned for breach of his sockpuppet ban which he did to harrass JeanMercer. The only other candidate for these '2 editors' is permabanned longtermabuser HeadleyDown. There was some evidence that he got in contact with the sockmaster during the last arbitration as well. Where do I make a formal complaint about this use of wiki to pursue harrassment of wiki editors off wiki? Whats the next step? FT2 knew all about the previous arbitration when he was an admin but I don't like to ask him now he's an arbitrator. He recused himself from this request for arbitration because of his involvement in the last one where he supported our claims that the 7 editors were all sockpuppets. I've mentioned Kingsleys post in the Request for clarification. Should I leave it to ArbCom or is it an admins matter?Fainites barley 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have left quite a lengthy post on his talk page; seems to be a breakdown of trust between him and others, which can be very difficult (if not impossible) to repair. Will try to keep an eye out. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fainites barley 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear (see below). Still - hope springs eternal.... Fainites barley 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 14 31 March 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JJonz is back

Two sysops were contacted but no action was taken as of yet (they appear to be offline). Here's a thread. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look and blocked two accounts as apparent sockpuppets. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JJonz certainly shook the place up tonight. Report on AIV, report on AN, report here, various reports to talk pages, etc. :) I reverted one of his socks like 10 times. Enigma message 06:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ne'er a dull moment, eh? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP talk page

When his talk page became unprotected, User talk:76.181.202.247 came back to replace it all with profanity. Since you semiprotected it last, I thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a red link; sure it's the right IP? :p – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Sorry about that, the correct page is User talk:76.195.67.214. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you  :-)

Thank you for answering the question I left at AIV. --David from Downunder (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who semi-pp

Thanks for that; I really would do the others. There's been a lot and there'll be a lot more. It's all BLP stuff, not just usual unsourced rumours. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check back on the pages sometime tomorrow, I think (probably getting offline in the near future, myself), but I've no objection if someone else takes action in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to bed already!!

Do you know if this is feasible? I remember there are restrictions to system messages. -- lucasbfr talk 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. And sleep at last -- O, I rest, Horatio. Okay, quoting Hamlet means I need sleep... toodles! – Luna Santin (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lectures on the 6th

Kim is starting the lectures on April 6th around 15:00 UTC (although that is apparently open to discussion). Just a reminder... Xavexgoem (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busy-bodies with nothing better to do

I am all for a lively debate and will gladly use my mop-and-bucket to enforce the WP:USER guideline no matter which way consensus goes, but implying that I am one of the "Busy-bodies with nothing better to do" [9] does not strike me as being conducive toward civil discussion. Since we both want the same thing (to make Wikipedia better) and as I have no doubt that we will both abide by consensus, I do not see the need to make personal slams against me or anyone else who follows a literal interpretation of WP:USER. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I believe that harassing IP editors is productive, helpful, or humane. We'll have to agree to be uncivil in our own ways, hm? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a moment to grok your reply. Are you saying that we are both being uncivil -me by "harassing" IP editors and you by making "personal slam" comments- and since we both obviously think we are right, it is ok to not be civil? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really my point was more that your post here and my reply to it is of little consequence, in the great scheme of things. As you say, we obviously both believe that we're right. Judging from what you've said here, you think I've implied you're a "busy-body with nothing better to do" -- fair enough, sorry to bruise your feelings. It is difficult to remain civil in the face of those who willfully heckle and bait others, but I'll strive to bear your sensitivity in mind, even if you endorse a policy/guideline change that would deny many others that same consideration; I haven't checked to see if you edit war in this way, and, to be very candid, it makes little personal difference to me whether you do or don't because my ire is not directed at you in particular. So. I've apologized for offending you. Will the many civility offenses conducted in the name of "record-keeping" ever see apologies? Doubtful. I'd love it if we could focus on the core debate at hand. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As I was the one who objected to the change to WP:USER, I have reverted [10] my own revert of your edit. I also apologized [11] to the IP I recently reverted for deleting warnings off their talk page. If I run into others I have reverted in the past (I do not recall any off the top of my head, but I it has probably happened before), I will be sure to apologize to them as well. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. [12]  :-) Thank you for helping me understand how my view was mistaken. --Kralizec! (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting the attacks on my userpage and protecting it. I didn't even realize it had been vandalized until just now :)--Urban Rose 23:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Santin and the attachment theory

Dear Luna Santin,

I am extremely pleased with my application which I think went very well. However I did not appeal the decision twice as you are only allowed one appeal per decision and both Fainites and myself agreed upon one thing that 'Mediation' only works when both parties act in good faith. If you are interested you will see a video clip I have produced for YouTube on the topic.

I have changed the disputed page on Michael Rutter to the original title "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory" as it was correctly cited in the first place. This is a very importnat change as it reinforces the fact they are not the same thing ie mothers are not naturally the best carers for small children.

I should be very grateful if you could tell me what I should do if Fainites changes it back again? (Please note this is not a matter of consensus but a simple case of right and wrong).

Many thanks,

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Luna Santin/Salt

Hey :) When you find the time, can you convert this page to a more direct protection? The cascade is apparently reaching out to protect some other templates (some blocking ones). -- lucasbfr talk 12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind in fact, I just deleted the page that was transcluding {{Uw-uhblock}} ^^. -- lucasbfr talk 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of, anyway; seems a good idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

However I have a policy of leaving just about everything I possibly can (within reason) in place, whether I agree with it or not. So I restored the content, but moved it to the appropriate place in the discussion thread, and replied. [13] I know the user is now blocked. I really do appreciate the revert though! ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I'll try to remember that. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonator

Haha! I never even saw this guy. Thanks for the block! GlassCobra 00:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it probably wasn't you, after all. ;) Thank you for the backup, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Sock

The sockpuppets of User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf have returned to the Quadruple-double page, which you were so kind as to semi-protect a while back [14]. As you can see from the talk page [15], he's blatant about it. He appears to have aged a sock and waited for his chance. I thought I'd come to you first before posting to SSP, since you have experience with it. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sock wasn't aged, actually, the semi just expired recently. :) I'll reinstate the protection and see what happens, next. Thanks for letting me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Lectures

The lecture has started. irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia-en-lectures

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So early in the morning! x.x But thanks for the reminder. I should be in the channel from here on out. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romanian diaspora

Hi, I saw you intervening into that silly revert war and calling the sides to enter a discussion. Well, I posted what looks like a reasonable proposal to me, but none of the participants has taken any interest in it. Perhaps you could protect the page again? The problem I foresee about it is that the side in favor of the Wrong Version (tm) may ignore further discussion and the whole thing will restart immediately after unprotection (as it did last time). Your call. --Illythr (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urged on WP:ANI to stop any campaign against Romanian editors. Including the above article. it was a campaign made by stalkers against Romanian editors. Marc KJH (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I'll trust to AN/I. If I have time I'll check back later. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford

Is there any way that you can delete Bradford N. Smith's page permanently. I am his father, and was unaware that he had done this until recently. None of his information is true, other than the Mad magazines and his birthdate and name, I would really appreciate it if you could delete it from here, or at least direct me to somebody who can. Thank you. If you need any proof to this claim, I can sign in on Bradford's two wikipedia user names. This one, Rhssoccer, which edited some of the page. and....

This one, ScoobyDooGuy1991, which he claimed initially was his nephew's, but was in fact his. I'm not sure why, but I assume he created two users in order to make his claim to fame seem more believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoobyDooGuy1991 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradford N. Smith. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:MudkipLurve

Go right ahead. :-) east.718 at 20:37, April 8, 2008

Replied to your talk. Note to self, check on this later. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Thanks for the revert on my user page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for silencing corruption of lol.

The yammering of the vandals must not silence wiki. This is a magnificent resource. Sinneed (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help out a touch. If you happen to have any more vandalism problems, you can always report them at WP:AIV. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP

[16] Gary King (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not running you through your paces with these RPPS :) Gary King (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few of them, today, I see. :) Since I'm on a school lab computer away from home, I can't get on IRC or access any of my other usual "problem-finding" resources, so figured this would be a decent way to help out for a bit. Thanks for the reports -- hard to deal with hot spots if nobody knows where they are! – Luna Santin (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; I don't know if I'm doing a service to the community by bringing so many articles the attention they need or a disservice by spending the time of administrators :p Gary King (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to submit too many requests, but I personally don't think you've hit that point (and it's rather apparent you're acting in good faith, anyway). You'll probably get a good idea of what will or won't be protected by watching things, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well so far, I've only got Nova Scotia declined because it was only short vandalism in the morning, Leona Lewis because the vandalism was reverted by a dedicated editor, Doctor Who because lots of people were watching it for vandalism already, and AMX because it was still a new article. This is out of 60 reports so far :) Of course, for every decline I get, I quickly learn from it as you can see from the varying reasons (you won't be seeing the same mistake happening again!) I originally reported to WP:RPP because articles I work on are typically vandalism targets like Bill Gates, and later worked on several other high target articles and felt like my work would help to benefit the community as much as I could. Gary King (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only athletes had that sort of batting average, eh? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah. Now, I'll try my best to be as consistent as possible! :D Gary King (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

Very good idea. Thanks for the quick reaction, and sorry that this WP:fr issue creates trouble here. Bradipus (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits' user page

You might want to weigh in on the ANI discussion here - Alison ❤ 08:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typ932

Thanks for bringing it to my attention; the block was an accident/mistake. See my comment here. Thanks again, Daniel (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Baiano Afd

Hi, just saw your comment and would like to respond.

  • I try to make Afd recommendations based on the existing guidelines and policies. In this case the idea he has an award is something that is notable. I would assume it to be correct without evidence to the contrary. To my knowledge the idea he has an award had never been challenged, so I would not assume it's false information because to do so does not assume good faith. SunCreator (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

A user, Seattlehawk94 seems to be editing off the IP 76.22.19.239 which you blocked for 1 year. The user is asking for the IP block to be lifted as it is for a building. Care to offer your opinion? Thanks. Woody (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied below. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A year-long IP block which affects registered users

Please join in at User talk:Seattlehawk94#unblock request, where an IP block of yours is being discussed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardblocked because the IP was apparently static, not apparently shared, was apparently being used by someone with prior experience or a grudge of some sort (possibly including accounts), and was apparently a source of ongoing harassment and threats (see the AN/I thread I linked with the block notice). I am not convinced the IP is actually shared and note the user requesting unblocking is attempting to justify/rationalize said harassment, but also acknowledge the block has already been switched to anon-only and that this action appears to be supported by consensus. If this user is a manager and has taken some action, as they claim, then the block may have accomplished something. I have no ego in this, I'm just concerned about whether or not this harassment will continue. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lectures

#wikipedia-en-lectures @ 15:00 UTC today, yay. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:64.69.34.7

Y'know, it'd be funny as hell if you perma-blocked him for a legal threat, but... HalfShadow (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see if they keep at it after the block expires, I suppose... >.> – Luna Santin (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 15 7 April 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Volume 4, Issue 16 14 April 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor — From the editor
Image placeholders
Image placeholders debated
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for simply bloody brilliant idea - {{AIV}} and your modifications to it. Having just let off a rant on the AIV talk page I saw this iconology on the AIV main page and I really hope there is a take up on it. I can see this solving alot of problems if there is buy in from other admins. Khukri 10:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thanks! I figured I could help a fledgling template find life with a formatting overhaul, after seeing it mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 10#Proposal: Template:AIV comment. Several other people (User:Steve Crossin comes to mind, specifically) also deserve credit for their ideas and suggestions. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You appear to be mistaken about a few things. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)"

It is you that is mistaken. You blocked half of the library from editing because of one joke. Please let the library IP edit again.


User:Kanabekobaton edit warring arenas

I'm at my 3RR limit on a couple of the arena pages he's been changing to stadiums. If he's not going to explain the edits, I'm going to revert as vandalism. DarkAudit (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still recommend a post to WP:AN/I, since I'm not 100% confident others will agree this is simple and obviously malicious vandalism. =\ Not all "bad" edits fit into that category. Sometimes more eyes and ears are the best solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User followed up with cutting out 12K from Pauley Pavilion. No reason why. Continues to simply blank warnings from their talk page. DarkAudit (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An IP user is now following my reversions to other pages Kanabekobaton had changed to stadium with no explanation. Reported to AIV. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's unambiguously actionable. Blocked the IP for 48 hours; if it's Kanabekobaton on the IP, they'll also effectively be blocked for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are reverting his fixes to the infobox. Both of you were reverting to a broken version. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are we to know when there's no communication going on with the other editor? First time, I assumed good faith. When Twinkle took me to the user's talk page, there were already warnings about the user's behavior that day. The user decided to keep on reverting without bothering to tell anyone why, or engage in any discourse at all. The stone silence on the other end was the biggest problem here. If there had been the least attempt to communicate, then this may have been averted. DarkAudit (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really was not comfortable with the blocks either. When you (DarkAudit) posted the IP on AIV, I declined it. Frankly, there is little to suggest that this user is not attempting to make valuable contributions but in what he is contributing there are indications he does not understand our policies or possibly our language. The straight to warning level 4 with such obviously not purposefully harmful edits is discouraging and seems like assuming bad faith to me. SorryGuy  Talk  16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went straight to that level because I saw a pattern. I had reverted a couple of Kanabekobaton's edits, and within seconds, the IP editor shows up reverting those, and only those. The only edits that IP had ever made were reverting reverts I had made. I was reverting as vandalism because the extended silence on the other end and the blanking of the talk page made it nigh-impossible to assume good faith. DarkAudit (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Malonian vs Special:Contributions/JemmaBrossel who you blocked

if you have time, take a quick look. i think they've just created a new account to continue their campaign against User:Richard0612. Thanks. xenocidic (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon beat me to it, but looks like a good block. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oops, i shoulda checked the block logs. =) no problem. xenocidic (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lectures

Today (Apr 20th), around 15:00 UTC! Possibly on Skype, but certainly on IRC (#wikipedia-en-lectures on freenode)! I don't actually know about the Skype details... Message me on Skype (xavexgoem) about that, if you have it (no harm in getting it, either), and then maybe by that time I'll have a clue :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't edit!

I am trying to edit a page here but can't. Am I not allowed to edit from my college computer lab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.15.129 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like you're editing this page just fine. Is the page you're trying to edit protected, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cant edit any page. I can edit talk pages, but thats it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookaloo (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps autoblocked? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blocked user

Hi Luna, I see you just blocked User talk:166.113.0.98. Thanks for doing that, but I think you may have forgotten to put a block notice on their talk page. If I'm mistaken, please ignore this message. Have a good one. NJGW (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I typically don't leave a notice for simple vandalism blocks, but feel free if you'd like. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Klein/Procession Sockpuppetry

I appreciate your blocking the sockpuppet account for User:Procession (see [17]), but can I ask why you declined to block User:Lukeklein for engaging in this activity, which was clearly designed to skewer a rambunctious debate? Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already commented on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lukeklein, suggesting that another admin have a look. I'll mull it over and reach a decision myself or ask around a bit, later. No objection if you get somebody else to look in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could follow through, particularly since it appears (at least to my view) that this user is getting away without any reprimand for violating Wikipedia policies (he even denied doing it after it was confirmed that he created the sockpuppet). I am only asking you because I'm afraid it might be tacky if I go chasing after Admins on this matter. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procession has since been unblocked, after providing some evidence they're different people (though they do know each other); that being the case, it wouldn't make sense for me to block Lukeklein at this point. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the two users are actually roommates using the same wireless connection (as identified in Procession's statement for unblocking). In any event, I appreciate your input in this matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nath

You might also want to note that 83.82.115.34 has been violating privacy rules, identified another editor by their alleged legal name, here. I reverted it and posted the stock warning, but they don't seem to have contacted oversight to remove the edit. Sivanath (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to act unilaterally at this time, outside protection and a "wait and see" approach, but feel free to post to WP:AN/I or elsewhere soliciting additional input/eyes. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll email oversight myself... I think the IP certainly could have been blocked for violating 3RR, or that semi-protection against ip disruption might have been just as effective, but the page seems to have been stable for a long time before the ip editor showed up, so it probably doesn't matter that much. I've only tweaked it a little myself... Sivanath (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sivanath, would you care to explain why you deleted all references to http://hamsa-yoga.org including a reference to a recent newspaper piece on his activities, and the video tape links of him presenting at the United Nations? Don't these things seem like they might satisfy the basic notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia? If you feel that the issue is not that these events do not make Yogiraj Siddhanath Gurunath notable, please explain why Mahendranath is there. On the other hand, if the issue is that you do not feel that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath has the correct initiations for citation on the Nath page, could you provide evidence that Mahendranath - who you relisted several times after I removed him because there is no evidence on the page of his initiations apart form his own writings - has these initiations and should be listed?

Thanks.--83.82.115.34 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll note that I stated that members of the International Nath Order were abusing their wikipedia admin privileges and, when one of the INO people suggested that this was a "conspiracy theory" ala the Illuminati, I simply named names. The suggestion has been made that this is improper - well, I dunno, if naming names is improper, so be it. I removed the name but the accusation stands.

As for the fundamental issue, here it is: Lobsang Rampa was a guy who invented a fictional life as a Tibetan Lama. This guy they call Mahendranath invented a fictional life as a Nath. How do we know this? Well, here's the thing - we don't know for sure. However, the Nath page has been maintained for a long time - largely by Mahendranath group members - with the rule that any Nath teacher who somebody wants to list on that page must have been officially given a special initiation. However, they exempt their own teacher, Mahendranath, from all such rules of evidence. Not only is there no third party confirmation that Mahendranath was given any such Parampara initiation, in fact the only evidence we have that he was a Nath at all is his own books and letter, which are clearly self-referential and therefore bar him from listing on the page until such time as either new evidence is produced, or the rule for inclusion on the page allows self-documentation of status of a Nath teacher.

This is not a minor matter. For example, http://hamsa-yoga.org is a recognized Indian Nath teacher who the International Nath Order wiki distortion crew regularly delete from the Nath pages on the basis that they do not believe his story about initiation, in spite of the fact that he is accepted as a Nath teacher by the wider Nath community in India.

The conflict of interest issues in this case are severe. The International Nath Order has maintained a Scientology-like war against other Nath groups, including splinter groups of their own tradition, for at least 10 years, if not 15. The AMOOKOS group, for example, has had to pull material down because of legal threats, and there are many accounts of this kind of thing in places like the archive of the AMOOKOS mailing list.

What is particularly troubling is that International Nath Order people have been abusing their position as wikipedia admins to maintain their version of the truth - that they are sole inheritors of the Nath tradition outside of India, and they are willing to lie and break the rules to maintain that position.

Bottom line: they need to provide evidence, from sources which are not Mahendranath's writings, that he was ever initiated as a Nath, and that he was passed Parampara, or they need to allow the listing of other modern Nath groups - particularly the http://nath-society.org and the http://hamsa-yoga.org groups - on the page. It's a simple question of a cult-like group seizing control of an information resource. Nothing more, and nothing less. --83.82.115.34 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the Nath page. I hope a refined discussion takes place on its' talk page. _Vritti (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Procession

Just to let you know, I have unblocked this user because photographic evidence presented to unblock-en-l indisputably proves that the two accounts are operated by different people. This may be a case of meatpuppetry, but it is not sockpuppetry.

Cheers. --Chris (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. o.o Will take your word for it for now, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:O

– Gurchzilla 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:o – Luna Santin (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Hall Protection Request

Thank you for responding to my request for page protection regarding the David Hall (Oklahoma governor) article. Although you have already declined my request, I was wondering if you had a chance to read the comments relating to the dispute on my UserTalk page, and the UserTalk pages of User:J.delanoy, User:John celona, and User:Jkp212. Having said that, I have a question regarding how to deal with comments made by User:John celona and User:Jkp212 on my UserTalk page regarding the Billy Cannon article, which I have no connection to. I have posted notices on both of their UserTalk requesting that they refrain from arguing with each other my UserTalk page, but that does not settle the question of what to do with the inappropriate comments on my UserTalk page. User:Acalamari, the administrator I first contacted regarding this matter, but who chose not to take an active role in resolving the dispute, suggested that it would be acceptable for me to remove the irrelevant comments from my UserTalk page. Any further assistance you can provide regarding this matter would be appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users are generally given a pretty wide latitude as far as removing comments from their own talk pages. Notice User:John celona continued edit warring and has been blocked. Will check back periodically to see if any more blocks are needed (for any edit warriors, not any particular person). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rutter

I should be very grateful if you would look at the page I created on Michael Rutter and the edits by Fanities. It seems to me that these edits are made without reference to the text or the supporting page on Monotropy and I should be grateful if you would tell me whether they constitute vandalism?

Rutter describes Monotropy as 'abandoned' yet it appears on the attachment theory page as a 'tenet' citing Jean Mercer before it was removed.

Many thanksKingsleyMiller (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 17 21 April 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factually incorrect

You stated: "Actually, your actions following the March 21 block make it quite apparent that you issued a legal threat via email, given your immediate claims that a threat made off the wiki wouldn't count. For example, you removed a post mentioning the threat on the grounds that it discussed a private email, posted carefully worded posts that repeatedly deny only making a threat "on Wikipedia" but do not deny making such a threat, then move to justify your use of email to issue the threat; in the days following, you were engaged in an argument at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats over the meaning and spirit of the policy (arguing that the email was acceptable), and were eventually blocked for edit warring on that page. You regularly insist that users who criticize your actions are behaving in an uncivil manner and should stop commenting or remove their criticisms, and continue that trend here. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)"

The block does not make anything clear, as it was withdrawn, which would not be in compliance with NLT if there was such. Also, I stated that in addition to my not making a threat, that email would not apply. You conflated the two as one argument, which is incorrect.

I removed two posts by the admin in question demanding answers on Wikipedia about a private email. Wikipedia is not a message board, nor should it be used as such.

In the days following, I was involved in a dispute that had SwatJester and Thebainer agree with me on the wording. Please do not misstate this, as community consensus agreed with me on the issue.

Furthermore, those who bring up misstatements of facts fall under "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page so as to mislead one or more editors." By constantly saying that I have made legal threats when the block was overturned and a statement was that I didn't, in fact, make an actual legal threat, then that is asserting false information that would mislead others. That is improper, especially in such a situation as this. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To back up my statement regarding the history of the "legal block": here. As you can see from the discussion, it was determined that it wasn't an actual legal threat.

Especially: "::I concur. The use of the term "legal" in the comment made to Shell does not appear to have been intended to express actual legal action. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)" and "::I've reduced your block to 19 hours, which represents the remainder of the time you had left on your most recent temporary block. Mangojuicetalk 03:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willfully omitting the key statement from the unblocking admin, "I'm going to take that as a retraction and unblock you." :) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 1) I missed that the first time around, I think I was unblocked by that time and 2) that wasn't the unblocking admin. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite sure on that point? Rather appears Mangojuice made that comment at 3:06 (UTC) and unblocked you at 3:07 before reinstating the prior (temporary) block at 3:08. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It reads as "22:09, 21 March 2008 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs) unblocked Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs) ‎ (wait, sorry, he threated to take legal action against me with the WM Foundation, changing back to original length)" to me, and that was the retraction of "22:08, 21 March 2008 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Legal threats)". Hmmm.
I don't know. There are too many unblocks and reblocks to really tell what is going on anymore. My talk page times don't really seem to match up with any of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J93howell

I think that user should be blocked indefinitely (or banned) because his account is only used for vandalism. See this? That was what he did on my talk page after I warned him about this racially-motivated edit. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience that with this sort of user or account, the block duration has little impact in practice: once they're blocked, they frequently stop editing indefinitely. If they do return, either they continue to edit disruptively and are reblocked (happy ending), or reform and edit productively (happy ending). On the off chance they do come back and bother you, my bad. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael rutter

Please can you advise on the following?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Rutter#Dispute_resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 10:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]